Recognizing Cultural Sustainability
April 8, 2012
Recognizing Cultural Sustainability
Sustainability, as defined by the Brundtland Commission, an organization that was created in 1983 to promote integrated global sustainability, focuses on meeting current human needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Traditionally, the sustainability paradigm encompasses the interactions between humans and the economic, social and environmental aspects of living. Many Venn diagrams readily available on the Internet support this fact. In his book, The Myth of Progress: Toward a Sustainable Future, Wessels states that there are three laws of sustainability: the law of limits to growth, the second law of thermodynamics, and the law of self-organization in complex systems. He explains that these laws contribute to linear reductionist thinking which does not take into account how all the parts of a complex system interact with each other, interactions that cannot be predicted exactly. Wessels notes that, “What is lost in this paradigmatic view of the world is that the whole may be much more than the sum of its parts” (6). This is an important argument for the inclusion of culture as the fourth pillar of sustainability. The topic of adding culture to the already widely accepted three pillars of sustainability — social, environmental, and economic — is an important idea for society to address because the addition of a fourth pillar to represent culture creates a holistic approach to sustainability. Cultural sustainability examines ways to improve our lives and leave a viable inheritance for future generations. The addition of cultural sustainability as the fourth pillar is not controversial — but it is only in recent years that culture on its own merits and not as part of one of the other three pillars has been added to discussions about sustainability. I believe that cultural sustainability is equally as important as economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability and should be included as one of four pillars supporting sustainability in a holistic approach. This is a message that needs to be expressed through mass communications as well as through education. Cultural sustainability involves efforts to preserve the tangible and intangible cultural elements of society in ways that promote environmental, economic, and social sustainability.
Sustainability needs to be a part of all decisions and actions, whether the consideration is economic, environmental, social or cultural, no matter if the decision or action is being made at the local, national, or global level. Economic sustainability assesses various plans for best financial value, expected life span, maintenance and operational costs. According to a diagram promoting the sustainability theories of Adam Werbach, an environmental activist, published on the website, “The Living Principles for Design,” economic sustainability is concerned with “actions and issues that affect how people and organizations meet their basic needs, evolve and define economic success and growth.” Environmental sustainability attempts to minimize the use of nonrenewable resources and energy consumption, eliminate waste to land fill, etc. It is concerned with “actions and issues that affect natural systems, including climate change, preservation, carbon footprint, and restoration of natural resources” (Werbach). Social sustainability focuses on meeting all, or as many of a community’s needs as possible, such as appropriate facilities for the elderly, children and cultural groups. It is concerned with “actions and issues that affect all aspects of society, including poverty, violence, injustice, education, healthcare, safe housing, labor, and human rights” (Werbach). Cultural sustainability is concerned with “actions and issues that affect how communities manifest identity, preserve and cultivate traditions, and develop belief systems and commonly accepted values” (Werbach).
Cultural sustainability examines ways to enhance our cultural identity and sense of place through heritage, shared spaces, public art, social capital, educational opportunities, and public policies in ways that promote environmental, economic, and social sustainability. As the concept of sustainability continues to evolve, cultural sustainability will be included in discussions that examine culture and its links to environmental, economic and social dimensions of society. In these discussions, we will find that culture is linked to the economy through income generation and employment; culture is linked to social programs that deal with poverty, equal rights, and civic engagement; and culture is linked to the environment through the use of cultural capital to raise environmental awareness and responsibility. In “Integrating Environmental and Cultural Sustainability for Heritage Properties,” Powter and Ross state, “The definition of cultural sustainability continues to evolve, yet explicit reference to heritage conservation (or historic preservation) is often overlooked or applied simplistically” (5). For example, a building has real estate value, but may also have spiritual, symbolic or cultural value, in addition to its economic value. A building’s cultural value is also known as cultural capital which encompasses tangible forms of culture such as places, arts, and artifacts. In A Handbook of Cultural Economics, Throsby notes that, “Intangible cultural capital includes forms of culture such as “ideas, practices, beliefs, traditions, etc.” (4). The inheritance of all types of cultural capital is similar to the inheritance of natural capital — both represent intergenerational equity. Throsby explains the intergenerational equity of natural and cultural capital: “Both have been inherited from the distant or recent past, the former provided as a gift of nature, the latter deriving from human creativity. Both impose a duty of care on the present generation, the essence of sustainability” (4). Cultural heritage connects people to a place through an identity and values, and the continuance of that heritage is what cultural sustainability is about. As people strive to maintain their sense of self and place, decisions and actions relating to sustainability need to take into account a community’s cultural capital.
When preserving cultural capital for contemporary and future use, communities are protecting their cultural identities, both tangible and intangible. Including applications of cultural, economic, environmental, and social sustainability in community development and identity preservation has positive effects on creating a paradigm shift in the general worldview of sustainability. These positive effects occur because each group focuses on its own identity and is not forced to accept another group’s cultural identity. Powter and Ross state, “Not only is heritage conservation concerned with protecting cultural objects that are in limited supply and once gone are gone forever; it also contributes directly to sustainable development and sustainable communities” (6). Cultural sustainability supports the other three pillars of sustainability – social, economic, environmental – for example, through the re-use, recycling, and/or repurposing of resources on which energy has already been spent. Powter and Ross explain, “[L]ike environmental sustainability, heritage conservation promotes the use of existing resources; that is, resources that have previously received an investment in extraction, energy, and land” (6). An example of how cultural sustainability can support the other pillars of sustainability occurs when buildings get used for new purposes, perhaps offering a socially sustainable benefit to low-income residents. Using a building for new purposes may offer an economic benefit, too, because funds are not needed to build new; and it may also offer environmental benefits because building materials are not disposed as waste in landfills. Yet, cultural sustainability has taken decades to get this far in discussions of sustainability because culture does not always receive the publicity it warrants if it is to be considered a pillar of sustainability. Communication is very important in disseminating the message about cultural sustainability and its integration with the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability.
Communications Effect on Sustainability
Efforts made by various entities to get the message out to mainstream society about cultural sustainability include communications that inform, shape, and shift our relations with the other three dimensions of sustainability: social, economic, and environmental. In his essay, “Naturalizing Communication and Culture,” Carbaugh states,
Communication is the basic social process through which our natural ways and cultural meanings are being exercised socially. Further, whether this communication is explicitly about landscapes, lions, limousines, or whatever, in the process we implicate something of natural and cultural processes, with our communication being radically consequential for, if not the whole of, both the natural and the cultural (40).
Since models of sustainability must begin at the local level, that is also where communications should focus until there is a paradigm shift in the worldview toward sustainability; there is no “one size fits all” model that can be managed through one global movement. Each community is best left to create its own paradigm shift which, collectively, adds to the worldview. We are seeing a greater appreciation via mass communications for the diversity of cultures around the world, but, still, communities must focus on the preservation of their own cultures with local sustainability in mind before looking at cultural sustainability on a global scale which will occur organically in a collective manner.
Prior to achieving a paradigm shift in the general worldview toward sustainability, grassroot efforts need to be undertaken at the local level where communications can propel a greater appreciation for local culture. The sustainability framework based on three pillars – social, environmental, and economic – will change with the recognition of culture as part of that framework. In “Media Frames and Environmental Discourse: The Case of ‘Focus: Logjam,'” Schlechtweg notes,
To understand how a newscast or newspaper item intersects with public discourse, we have to go ‘beyond the text’ to consider the discursive – and hence social, cultural, and historical – context in which it is embedded. It is at this point that the limitations imposed by a media frame, and its implications and significance for environmental discourse, become apparent (258).
Culture and values are significant components of communities, but each culture’s values are not static; they evolve over time, thus first shifting local views of what defines sustainability and then creating paradigm shifts in the worldview on sustainability. Holistic efforts to integrate all four pillars of sustainability should be part of discussions on how the four pillars are linked. For example, quality of life is related to both social and cultural capital. But, using communication to share ideas about sustainability at the local level can require just as much strategic planning as at the global level. Local institutions should be involved in promoting a sense of place and identity that fits with the local cultures. Cultural well-being occurs when communities and individuals are provided social activities that promote cultural capital. Cultural sustainability must not focus on tangibles over intangibles so that communities can retain a holistic sense of place and identity. Intellectual and spiritual experiences are just as important to one’s sense of well-being as heritage buildings and art.
Using communication to guide global sustainability efforts across cultures involves interpersonal, group, mass, and global types of communication. The authors of “From Selling Soap to Selling Sustainability: Social Marketing,” published in the 2010 State of the World report, examine how the use of social marketing to fix ecological problems can affect social behavior leading to changes in lifestyle and politics. Story-based campaigns shift consumer behavior based on perceived identities linked to choice of products (Jonah Sachs and Susan Finkelpearl 2010). From this observation, the importance of identity is connected to lifestyle and politics which are part of a community’s culture. In “Consumption Behavior and Narratives About the Good Life,” Michaelis notes,
Efforts to engineer cultural change have not worked well and have often had unintended consequences. … One of the most important stimuli for cultural change has been the emergence of new technology, especially transport and communication technology (258).
Appropriating the latest in communication technology, including online social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, enables messages and campaigns to move along more swiftly than even as recently as five years ago. These online social networks will continue to evolve with newer technology, but the quickness and reach of messages communicated through these networks increases the effect of any campaigns and I believe we will see sustainability becoming a more common discussion because of new communication technology.
Economic and Cultural Interactions
Cultural sustainability involves efforts to preserve the tangible and intangible cultural elements of society in ways that promote economic sustainability. Cultural activities can promote local policy making and economic factors through a sense of place and social activities that bring together people from diverse backgrounds. According to Throsby, capital assets, such as “artworks in a museum, or historic buildings or sites,” produce
income flows [that] might be generated by displaying the artworks for people to look at, or by opening the buildings and sites to tourists. In each case a stream of monetary income is generated which accrues to the immediate owners of the asset in question; at the same time a stream of ‘cultural income’ is also generated, some of which accrues to society at large as public-good benefits arising from the existence of these items of the cultural capital stock (8).
Using cultural capital to generate a sustainable economy is already occurring. Each time someone pays to walk through a museum to view art works or attends a music concert, that money is generating a sustainable economy.
One unusual idea that has not gained widespread use is to swap labor for more free time. This idea takes into account the economic and human activities that consume nonrenewable resources, activities which cannot be allowed to continue without severe environmental consequences. Working fewer hours has been shown to improve health, reduce air pollution from cars and factories, provide more time to enjoy life/ nature, and decrease the desire for material things, according to de Graaf in “Reducing Work Time as a Path to Sustainability,” published in the 2010 State of the World report.
An example of how cultural capital can promote economic sustainability can be found in any natural or built environment that generates tourism. However, discussions on the merits of preserving such cultural capital in the face of erosion and degradation need to be addressed and policies put in place before being confronted with such dilemmas. In “Cultural Heritage: Dilemma of Preservation in the Midst of Change,” Robertson-von Trotha examines the ecological sustainability of world cultural sites including the canals in Venice. The canals have changed over time and now threaten to flood the city. While the canals are a boom to the tourism economy, the number of boats using the canals have damaged the area’s ecology (2011). In this situation, decisions need to be made about the relationship between culture and the environment. This is an ethical discussion, because on the one hand, a built landscape has created a tourism economy, but on the other hand, that built landscape is hurting the environment. Will the answers be based on an obligation to the environment, the economy, or to the culture of that region? Closer to home, a similar example are the mills along the Androscoggin River that pumped carcinogenic waste into the river during the manufacture of products. The local community was dependent on the mills for wages and so rather than shut down the mills until the pollution problem was fixed, the mills continued to contaminate the river for years, implementing very few of the pollution guidelines as they were created by legislation. The mills eventually closed as the work moved overseas where labor was cheap. But if the mills hadn’t closed for economic reasons, would they have continued to manufacture and pollute the environment? Today, the history of the mostly Franco-American mill workers – on the job, at home, at church – presents the Franco-American culture to the community in positive ways that they did not enjoy during their working days in the mills. The mills supported the workers and the workers spent their money locally. The mill buildings are now either empty because the cost to bring them up to today’s building codes is too expensive for most buyers or they have been recycled into new uses such as office space, restaurants, a museum, and living space. The mills are great examples of how culture integrates with social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability.
Environmental and Cultural Interactions
Being cognizant of cultural diversity is a powerful part of the paradigm shift, as evidenced by the turn in status of the Franco-American population and preservation of the mills in Lewiston-Auburn over the last few decades. Cultural sustainability projects benefit the environment through the preservation of cultural capital such as buildings that retain a community’s heritage. Cultural capital can be produced or preserved with environmentally friendly materials. The concerns of environmentalists/ecologists include endangered species which is similar to the concerns of those promoting cultural sustainability such as threats of the demolition of historic places or the extinction of indigenous languages, according to Throsby (5). Recognizing the cultural capital of a community enables discussion about the importance of its part in sustainability actions and programs. Culture can promote the values and visions of sustainability between social, environmental, and economic concerns in creative ways that provide opportunities for discussions that result in new answers.
Choice editing has made consumerism appear to be a natural activity and was used to promote mass consumption. Today, government and industry are becoming proponents of environmental sustainability through standards, labels, and policies. In his article, “Editing Out Unsustainable Behavior,” from the 2010 State of the World report, author Maniates writes about the choice editing of:
Safety and performance standards for everything from the food people eat to the cars they drive constrain and shape choice. The same holds true for tax, tariff, and subsidy policies that heighten the desirability of some products while making others unattractive or unavailable. More subtly, government decisions about where to build roads and rail lines, what schools and hospitals are constructed or closed, and which research and development initiatives are supported or starved converge to write the menu for housing, education, and jobs from which everyone must choose” (2010).
How does culture relate to, and what does it contribute to environmental sustainability in a discussion on choice editing and consumerism? Consumers make purchases based on the messages they receive through mass communications, particularly advertisements, but also based on news — which has been edited. Who is doing the editing and for what purpose? Those questions and the answers are important to the discussion about the integration of culture and environmental sustainability. This is also a good example of the overlap between the four pillars of sustainability. Certain products are promoted for which there may be an agenda that benefits an entity economically but to the detriment of cultural, social, and environmental sustainability.
Another example of how culture and environment integrate is through consumerism and labels on products. Labels could be an effective way to move consumerism toward sustainability, but Maniates writes,
At least three factors limit the effectiveness of labeling: the varying degree of environmental commitment among the general population; the complexity of consumer-choice decisions, which are structured by intricate sets of social processes and cultural influences; and a corrosive ‘choice architecture’ — the potent context within which people make decisions (SOW 2010).
In this example, we have labels placed on products that may have different values for different cultures. This is a good example of how global policies are not necessarily the best method of promoting sustainability policies. Certain products may mean more to one group in a community than another group, and thus it is important that discussions about sustainability take place at the local level. The collective effect of local efforts that take into account diverse cultures and sustainability will be the most conducive to a paradigm shift in the worldview toward sustainability.
Education & Cultural Sustainability
Efforts to preserve cultural elements of society in ways that promote sustainability include education, communication, public policies, and the work of organizations like UNESCO. Through education, careful attention should be paid to globalization so that homogenization does not destroy culture at the local level. Policies should be created with flexibility in mind to account for differences in the cultural values of each community. Storytelling can be used at the local level to preserve a community’s culture and sense of identity in a sustainable manner. In Environmentalism in Popular Culture: Gender, Race, Sexuality, and the Politics of the Natural, Sturgeon writes,
The hallmark of environmental cultural studies is that it moves away from the emphasis on interpretation of texts found in ecocriticism, to use a framework that aims at historically and culturally specific analyses of the intertwining of political economy, cultural production, and ideological representations. One of the things that distinguishes this approach from traditional ecocritical and radical environmental movement traditions is the cultural studies emphasis on a critique of naturalization (11).
Improving a community’s knowledge about the four dimensions of sustainability – social, environmental, economic, and cultural – can take place in local educational venues that promote art and culture. Education about the complex integration of all four pillars and how they often overlap in discussions is key to an understanding of how culture can promote environmental, economic, and social sustainability.
Social and Cultural Interactions
The definition of culture and how it contributes to sustainability is a key aspect of education and mass communication in order to promote the idea that cultural capital is important to a community’s identity and well-being. Culture, such as art, food, and music – tangible and intangible cultural capital — has traditionally been included in discussions of social sustainability, but it is time that culture is recognized for its own merits as part of a paradigm shift in the worldview on sustainability. Social sustainability includes a community’s ability to provide its members with the tools for personal health, adequate food and shelter, opportunities for employment and education, and freedom to participate in civic affairs. Social capital refers to how closely and to what depth a community meets the needs of its members. Together, cultural and social sustainability develop community capital which adds to quality of life and sense of place. Van Londen and de Ruijterhe, the authors of “Sustainable Diversity,” examine questions pertaining to social progress such as how to best distribute scarce resources among societies and how diverse cultures can work together to pursue cultural and economic sustainability. The discussions surrounding these questions include the diverse global flows of culture — products, ideas, images, people (reminds me of the cross-cultural activity that took place on the Silk Road), and the resulting diaspora communities and interactions with marginalized groups (3-24). Each community will take its own unique approach to social sustainability with the goal of satisfying basic human needs.
Wessels’s reference to nomadic hunter-gatherer societies as an example of a time when life was “extraordinarily rich” does not necessarily serve as a useful example of how we can adjust our lives today. Each of us lives a life that is unique to our subjective selves and some of us like to live in the city while others prefer more isolated abodes. As an example of how communities can work together toward progress, perhaps the example of hunter-gatherers could teach modern societies how to start small at the local level, but think big in the global results of economic, social, and environmental movements.
Practical Applications of Cultural Sustainability
Any change in economic, environmental, or social policies that affect cultural aspects of a community, should be guided by the cultural values of that community whenever possible. Using global values carries the risk of homogenizing the diversity and complexity of our world. Respect must be shown to the history and character of whatever gives a community a sense of place. Whatever it is about a place that denotes a community’s heritage, and that could be a physical landmark or a ritual, should be included in sustainability applications. A sense of place is not handed down from the government; it comes from the people who make up a community. In his book, Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, Cronon quotes anthropologist Stephen Feld:
‘When I read that we lose 15-20,000 species of plants and animals a year through the logging, ranching and mining that escalates rainforest destruction, my mind immediately begins to ponder how to possibly calculate the number of songs, myths, words, ideas, artifacts, techniques – all the cultural knowledge and practices lost per year in these mega-diversity zones’ (317).
Similarly, a language is lost every 14 days, mostly due to the only person on Earth using that language, dying, and the language not having been preserved. To historians and anthropologists, and perhaps to other researchers, the loss of a language amounts to a huge loss to humanity. But, while the loss of a language may herald the death of a specific culture, does it equate to a loss of one of the four pillars of sustainability? Certainly, there’s a loss of culture, especially if the language was not recorded, as happened when the last member of the Eyak tribe in northwest Alaska passed away. Why would the preservation of a language be important to sustainability in general? A discussion about language as cultural capital is an example of how education and communication are important aspects of sustainability campaigns.
Sustainability campaigns should propose that within the realm of cultural sustainability, communities must learn to minimize their consumption of natural resources. In the essay, “Restoring for Cultural-Ecological Sustainability in Arizona and Connecticut,” the authors examine the ways in which cultural restoration provides a look at the historical interactions between humans and nature. Examples of the progress being made toward the inclusion of cultural sustainability as the fourth pillar include the ecological and social degradation of a specific marsh and the creation of economic growth through an exchange of goods and services (Casagrande and Vasquez 2010). In contrast to the restoration of the mills along the Androscoggin River in Lewiston-Auburn, which are part of the built environment, the restoration of the marsh focuses on the natural environment. Recognizing both built and natural environments that are part of the cultural capital of a community as important assets that provide individuals living in that community with an identity and sense of place should lead to the development of practical applications toward sustainability.
In her essay, “Nature and Environmental Justice,” Evans states,
Locating oneself, or being located, in Nature is a throughly cultural activity: when actual subjects in the United States set forth to experience ‘the call of the wild,’ they are accompanied always by cultural expectations that the encounter may change or consolidate their identity in some meaningful way (182).
First comes the acknowledgment that nature can be a cultural experience. Then comes discussion about ways to apply activities that preserve that culture while at the same time promote sustainability. Using Niagara Falls and the Grand Canyon as examples, if earthquakes threatened the natural environment, the local economy of those areas would be in danger of economic loss due to the fact that those natural environments could not be recreated. In contrast, Walt Disney creates fantastic worlds that attract millions of visitors which generates an economic boost to the local economy wherever the magic kingdoms are located. However, if an earthquake destroyed Disney World, another theme park could be created to replace it. Nature is different than built environments. The documentary film, Pururambo, examines some of the most primitive inhabitants on Earth — Kombai tribes of New Guinea, some of whom live in trees — and compares their culture and lifestyle with modern mainstream culture. The film shows how the Western world is tough on indigenous cultures. Director Barabas delves into the loss of culture and the homogenization of our society (Barabas 2005). Nature is too complex to be created from a formula, unlike theme parks.
Sustainability can be defined as the ability to meet current environmental/ecological, economic, social, and cultural needs without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. In Communicating Nature: How We Create and Understand Environmental Messages, Corbett states, “Our sense of place – in addition to childhood experiences and historical and cultural contexts – influences how we perceive, experience, and value the natural world and ultimately, influences all our entire belief systems” (25). Practical applications of cultural sustainability can minimize the use of natural capital through resource management; improve tangible social capital such as public facilities and infrastructure; and strengthen economic capital through fair trade and getting more out of renewable resources. Special efforts to preserve natural and built landmarks that nurture a sense of place are vital parts of cultural sustainability. In conclusion, sustainability efforts that once were characterized by environmental, social, and economic discussions, now see the inclusion of culture in the discussions as a holistic benefit to communities through the development of a sense of place.
There is more to sustainability than environmental practices, economic growth, and equitable social services. Sustainability also includes a community’s values and cultural heritage. A paradigm shift in the worldview toward sustainability needs to include discussions about cultural sustainability in ways that do not damage our ecosystem, environment, and social well-being. The strategies toward this paradigm shift need to be inclusive and holistic. Throsby notes, “The notion of diversity, which is of such overwhelming importance in the natural world, has an equally vital role to play in cultural systems” (4). A combination of policies and designs that cover all four pillars of sustainability are needed to meet this goal. Look at the places we live and work. Are they environmentally friendly? Economically feasible? And, do they contribute to a sense of place? We need to place a high value on social and cultural capital. Strengthen the capital in our communities, whether that capital is natural or built, tangible or intangible, and that action will build the foundation on which sustainability is empowered as people identify with their culture and sense of place.
Brundtland Commission. Definition of Sustainable Development. United Nations, Dept. of Information, 2007. Web. 13 March 2012. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/media/backgrounder_brundtland.pdf
Carbaugh, Donal. “Naturalizing communication and culture.” Ed. J. G. Cantrill and C. L. Oravec. The Symbolic Earth: Discourse and Our Creation of the Environment. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1996. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
Casagrande, David G. and Vasquez, Miguel. “Restoring for Cultural-Ecological Sustainability in Arizona and Connecticut.” Restoration and History: The Search for a Usable Environmental Past. Ed. Marcus Hall. New York: Routledge, 2010.
Corbett, Julia B. Communicating Nature: How We Create and Understand Environmental Messages. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
Cronon, William. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1996. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
De Graaf, John. “Reducing Work Time as a Path to Sustainability.” 2010 State of the World: Transforming Cultures, From Consumerism to Sustainability. Worldwatch Institute. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010.
Evans, Mei Mei. “Nature and environmental justice.” Ed. Joni Adamson, et al. The Environmental Justice Reader: Politics, Poetics, and Pedagogy. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2002. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
Maniates, Michael. “Editing Out Unsustainable Behavior.” 2010 State of the World: Transforming Cultures, From Consumerism to Sustainability. Worldwatch Institute. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010.
Michaelis, Laurie. “Consumption Behavior and Narratives About the Good Life.” Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Lisa Dilling and Susanne C. Moser, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 251-265. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
Powter, Andrew and Ross, Susan. “Integrating Environmental and Cultural Sustainability for Heritage Properties.” Association for Preservation Technology International. 36.4. (2005): 5-11. Web. 2 april 2012.
Pururambo. Dir. Pavol Barabas. Slovakia: K2 Studio, 2005.
Robertson-von Trotha, Caroline Y. “Cultural Heritage: Dilemma of Preservation in the Midst of Change.” Sustainable Development – Relationships to Culture, Knowledge and Ethics. Eds. Oliver Parodi, et al. KIT Scientific Publishing, 2011.
Sachs, Jonah and Finkelpearl, Susan. “From Selling Soap to Selling Sustainability: Social Marketing.” 2010 State of the World: Transforming Cultures, From Consumerism to Sustainability. Worldwatch Institute. New York: W. W. Norton, 2010.
Schlechtweg, Harold P. “Media Frames and Environmental Discourse: The Case of ‘Focus: Logjam.'” The Symbolic Earth: Discourse and Our Creation of the Environment. Eds. James G. Cantrill and Christine L. Oravec. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1996.
Sturgeon, Noel. Environmentalism in Popular Culture: Gender, Race, Sexuality, and the Politics of the Natural. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
Throsby, David. A Handbook of Cultural Economics. Ed. Ruth Towse. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., 2003.
van Londen, Selma and de Ruijter, Arie. “Sustainable Diversity.” The Sustainability of cultural Diversity: Nations, Cities and Organizations. Eds. Maddy Janssens, et al. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc., 2010.
Werbach, Adam. “The Living Principles for Design.” Core77, Inc., 2012. Web. 8 Feb. 2012. http://www.core77.com/blog/business/the_living_principles_for_design_a_new_online_community_for_sustainable_design_16800.asp
Wessels, Tom. The Myth of Progress: Toward a Sustainable Future. Hanover, NH: University of Vermont Press, 2006.